Replaced by less accurate record
https://www.familysearch.org/search/linker?pal=/ark:/61903/1:1:X3TC-Y72&id=971P-55S was removed and this record is the new record https://www.familysearch.org/search/linker?pal=/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27N-FN62&id=971P-55S&hinting=/tree/person/details/971P-55S&icid=fs-hinting
So the one that replaced it needs to have the rest of the family members on the next page added to the family.
Best Answer
-
Jeff, click on record on the first one and you get this:
The record looks to be in the process of getting removed altogether. And the other record seems to be newer. So I made a logical assumption the newer one is replace the one that is getting deleted. I do understand getting indexes from different places and that they are valid sources that do not replace each other. This is not the same situation as that.
Concerning FamilySearch indexed records with split "household" groups it is because people do not read the project instructions. I remember reading in one of the project instructions a few years ago to index households that go into the next page and not to index households that came from the previous page. I'm assuming that piece of information has been in all projects like this, of course, though.
0
Answers
-
I'm surprised to find that the previous record was ever available! My experience of the "FamilySearch" versions of the England & Wales census collections is that they only ever cover the names of a household that appear on each page, due to there being a different citation reference for each page, rather than each household. I have long had difficulties in finding the "other half" of the household, especially when a family lived in a large town or city.
The first link must have lead to a Find My Past transcription for the whole household, whereas the second follows the more familiar situation of providing a link to those family members on a particular page in the census.
Still, I'm surprised one set has apparently been withdrawn: when this happened some time back, Brett and others pressed (and were successful) in getting the withdrawn version reinstated. Perhaps, if there is enough pressure, FamilySearch will now reinstate the "other" (more useful) version again.
0 -
In case you are confused by some of my remarks (below), I currently have a subscription to Find My Past. This allows me to have use of the direct links from FamilySearch to the original census records on FMP. Previously, I had no direct way (from my home) of seeing these records so, when a household was recorded over two pages in the original record, I often had problems in finding the "other half" of the family through the FamilySearch pages at https://www.familysearch.org/search/
0 -
Both of those sources are indexes and they both are legitimate and need to remain with the people listed in the index attached to the corresponding records in the FSFT. You will eventually find another "England and Wales Census, 1881" index that contains the children of the family that were recorded on the next page of that census and you will be able to link those index sources to the other children in the family.
"So the one that replaced it needs to have the rest of the family members on the next page added to the family"
Not at all. There is NO "replacement" going on here. Both of those sources are totally different sources coming from different places. Yes, they may have both been derived from images or paper copies of the original census, so they will have similar content. But they are still discrete and separate sources. One does not replace the other, one simply reinforces the other. They both need to be attached to the appropriate FSFT records for the members of the family.
Also note that on censuses, the thing that you assume to be "Family Groups" is NOT that. They are "Households". Those household typically contain members from a common family, but they are not all "Family" groups.
Just because you have 3 source citations attached to one of the family members labelled "England and Wales Census 1881" does NOT mean that those 3 sources are the same.
If you take an original published version of a book and set it next to the 5th publishing of that same book, both of those books may be used as sources, but they are NOT the same source. As a result any citations to them both could easily have differences in them. Or not.
You can't judge the uniqueness of a source by the automatically generated title that FS has assigned to it.
0 -
Jordi
When, some years ago, I complained about FamilySearch's handling of the England & Wales census collections, a manager advised me the records came directly from Find My Past, i.e. no input from FamilySearch. Subsequently, I have requested that FS assigns a member of its staff to liaise with an "opposite number" at FMP to ensure updates come across in satisfactory form, so the process is consistent and runs smoothly.
As I have commented, a comparison of the citation references shows they are based on page numbers in the original records, not household units. That is why I was surprised to see your example that does cover the household, even though it was spread over two pages. I have never noticed this In FamilySearch myself, which is why I use FreeCEN - subject to its (incomplete) coverage - in conjunction with my FS searches: as its records are based on household units.
However, I am sure FamilySearch's project instructions could have an adverse affect on its indexing of these and any other collections recorded in a similar manner (i.e. over two pages). As you might have seen, I recently raised a post on the general problem of inconsistency (concerning comparable projects) and bad advice that often seems to be contained in projection instructions.
0
